I am having a heckuva time losing the last of my weight!

I found that if I get in more protein each day, I can still lose. (No-brainer) I am trying to get to my goal of 110. I was at 122 last week, and then I guess I got too comfortable and had a few too many carbs (not outrageous though) and the scale crept up to 125 over several days. Friday I decided to cram in more protein so I had two protein drinks instead of one (46g in each). Friday and Saturday both, I got in about 120-130 grams of protein and the scale was moving, down to 123.8. Yesterday I only had one protein drink and the scale was back up this morning, 124.6. (Please don't tell me to stay off the scale - I CANNOT do that. It keeps me in line.) My question is this - if I have to get 120+ grams of protein in each day, but have to limit myself to 900-1000 calories or I will gain - is that it? Do I not have any other choice to reach my goal? Any suggestions? I really want to reach goal, but sometimes want food and not just liquid. How are the rest of you doing it? Am I beating a dead horse?

The less you have to lose, the harder it is to do it. I have insulin resistance, which makes my body extremely sensitive to carbs...I need to keep my total carb intake at 20 or less per day and my calories at 800-900 per day, or I gain. It sucks; but, it's the way it is (for me). Hope you find the answers that you seek...though, based on your picture, you really do not *need* to lose anymore weight... ~~Sherry

I thought I was the only person in the world who had to eat less than 1,000 calories to maintain. I too have insulin resistance and keep the carbs below 20 grms most days. It gets old but so is life. At least I have a life now days. Best wishes on that baby. Hope she arrives soon.

Hi Pat! Nope, you're not alone...there are more of us out there that you think. Thank you for the well wishes! ~~Sherry

Sherry HOW ARE YOU? Long time no see to you too...How is everything I will have to read your profile and catch up..When is the baby due....Drop me a line sometime....LOVE JEN

(((((((((((((((((Jen)))))))))))))))))) I'm doing well! Alexis Leigh-Ann is scheduled to be delivered, via c-section, on her due date (11/11/05)...3 weeks, 4 days to go! How are YOU doing? (((Hugs))) ~~Sherry

I don't know if you are beating a dead horse or not. The question that always comes to mind when someone is striving to get to a specific number is "Is it advisable to get there?". Let me explain. For the moment I am assuming you have more than a few years of living as a obese person. During that time several adaptations occured. Assuming again that you were somewhat active, your bone density increased to meet the demands of carrying a heavier load. By the same mechanism, the amount of muscle mass increased as well. As your weight declined and your percentage of fat decreased, the remainder may be greater than a person who always maintained your desired weight. To get there, you may have to give up more than adipose tissue (stored fat). You may be trying to shed bone and muscle mass. Goals are necessary to maintain focus and keep one energized. However, at some point you may need to ask the question: Is the number itself worth it? Personally, I would try to identify and attain a specific body fat percentage. One you get there, use exercise to tinker with the amount of lean body tissue. And as a female who will tend to lose bone density (and weight) as you age ( a function of living longer) I would do nothing that would accelerate any loss in bone density. Keep the 110 in front of you, but factor in body fat percentage. Maintain weight bearing exercise to ensure that bone density is never sacrificed on the altar of seeing a specific number on the scale. And muscle mass is necessary to burn calories. Reducing muscle mass will only serve to increase the difficulty of maintaining your weight. Keep the big picture in mind. Nowhere Man/ph/Jay

I have a question about the weight and bone density issue. I had a body fat analysis and was told I was "very good" for a 45 yo woman at 26% even tho my BMI says I am overweight. even before that I was happy to be a size 8 and feel fabulous, I am 130 and 4'11", However my dexascan last week showed a 10% decrease in my bone density scoring from 2 years ago even tho my weight is very stable & I haven't lost any more. I do vigorous exercise 4-6 times a week,weight lifting, cardio, stretching etc. and get in a good amount of calcium citrate + d and other minerals. (citracal plus) osteopenia is such an ugly word. am I crazy to wonder why a loss in bone does not reflect on the scale??? it seems like it would. unless with my working out I put on enough muscle to make up the difference. (yes I understand that it is VERY bad to lose bone and am freaked out by it, but am really just curious) I truely believe there is so much more to being healthy than the number on the scale. my "ideal" body weight is 118, but when I dropped to 120 I looked like hell, my face was so thin it added about 20 years to my appearance and I wanted to get back up to at least 125 and did, then put on another 5 pounds when I started working out really hard. I am pretty muscular for my size and I love that. I am seeing My gastric bypass surgeon and dietician next week and my PCP wants to hear from me after that. the ortho recommends I continue my calcium supplements, see the dietician again and start taking actonel (unsure if right spelling)

I'm not a nutritionist nor a physician. I do not claim to understand all this. What I do know is bone loss for post-menopausal women is a real danger. Malabsorbsion only magnifies the risk. The scale is not a very good metric of what one's ideal weight should be. Neither is BMI. One should never assume that one is not underweight just because their BMI says its not. Determination of one's ideal weight must determined by multiple factors. One of those factors is not "What did I weigh when I was 15?" Nowhere Man/PH/Jay

Maybe 110 is too low for you? So maybe you are already at goal. Just seems like 110 is very low, unless you are very short.